Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 17

Putting faces to the name (Special:Diff/1100882497)
Thanks for directing me to the RfC,. I now see the table's structure is subject of much debate (the comment in the code referred to an RfC from 4 years ago). I didn't mean to bulldoze the consensus.
 * Thanks for approching the talk page. The change you suggested causes issues in the sorting feature. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured list candidacy
From almost 3 months, I am working on the list with the intention of taking it to FLC. Now, after the RfC on the main thing, table structure, has been closed, I feel this meets the featured list criteria. I have nominated it for FLC, feel free to join the discussion here. Let me also thank all page watchers for helping me with sources, discussion, images, and other things related to the list. The only remaining issue was that of the lead image. We have consensus that there needs to be lead image of some kind, but cannot agree on which one. Thus, I feel FLC reviewers would be able to help and hopefully, provide an outsider's perspective. Nevertheless, lead image would not be an issue for the FLC. Let me know of your thoughts! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the initiative! I will leave a source review there.  Aza24  (talk)   20:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Lead image proposal
This was brought forward a few weeks ago & I'd like to rekindle it. I've changed my views on having a lead image in this article & at the List of vice presidents of the United States article. Indeed we should have a lead image. On the basis of keeping consistency between the two articles? I would (for example) suggest the White House for here & Number One Observatory Circle for the veep's list. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC) 'Tis done, for both. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both. - w o lf  18:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support both. – Drdpw (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And reverted, at least provisionally, as having a captionless off-center ill-explained photo as the lead of the article is not going to get it over the FL hurdle. --Golbez (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you want. I'm sorry I even rekindled the topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * welcome aboard the apathy train --Golbez (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a captioned lead image to both articles. Drdpw (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How about, a front view (north side) of the White House. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The current image (added by Drdpw) looks good. Cheers - w o lf  23:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Gerald Ford
Ford was never elected President or Vice President, but he is still given an election year of 1972. This should probably be addressed. I suggest either making the election year blank with a note explaining the situation, or adding a note saying he was only elected to the House of Representatives that year. 209.129.115.57 (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He completed the 1973–77 presidential term, which was created by the 1972 election. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly; and I have de-linked all elections when repeated due to an intra-term succession, as they were not separate / new elections. As for "1972" in the Ford row, I do not see a need to add a note, as his path to the presidency is well noted already. Drdpw (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I find the whole 'new' setup, is messed up. It was alright the way it was weeks ago, with Harrison & Tyler under 1840 election, Taylor & Fillmore under 1848 election, Nixon & Ford under 1972 election, etc. What we've got now? suggests a special presidential election occurred, after each presidential deaths & resignation. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the way it is now doesn't work. But I disagree that Ford should be under 1972, etc. --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you disagree with having Nixon & Ford together, under the 1972 bit? Ford completed the very term that Nixon was re-elected to. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because this is a list of presidents, not terms. Ford was not elected in 1972. As usual I suggest using the system in use at List of governors of Alabama etc. --Golbez (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tyler wasn't elected president in 1840, Fillmore in 1848, A. Johnson in 1864, Arthur in 1880, T. Roosevelt in 1900, Coolidge in 1920, Truman in 1944 & L. Johnson in 1960. Why single out Ford? This is the presidential list, not the vice presidential list. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Why single out Ford?" I didn't. His was simply the easiest option to discuss. You may have not noticed the ", etc.". --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

At sometime in late July, somebody changed around the 'election column's info & (IMHO) made a mess of it. Thank goodness, the confusing changes weren't made to the List of vice presidents of the United States page. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it equally odd to find, for example: 1960 in President LBJ's row, as I do seeing 1972 in GRF's row. They were not elected POTUS in those years. Some variation of the example noted above might work here. Drdpw (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH, deleting the 'election column' from this & the veep lists' page?, would be best. Adopting the governors list idea, would still make it appear that there's two separate terms between elections. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "two separate terms between elections" what? and sure you could delete the column but it seems useful to have a link to their elections. --Golbez (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there should be only 'one' term between elections, whether or not that includes more then one president. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the column should be "elections," not terms. In other words, it should be a column that explains how the person entered office, either via an election or ascension. --Golbez (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Better idea. Delete the 'election column' from this page & the list of veeps page. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I said this before when it came up, and agree with those others here this time that the Ford entry would benefit from a simple note indicating how he became both vpotus and potus. It's somewhat unique and worthy of a note. I don't see how anyone can reasonably be so dead-set against this idea. - w o lf  04:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already a note next to Ford in his VP cell stating: . The issue identified by the OP is that . That led to the observation that having, for example: 1840 in President Tyler's row and 1920 in President Coolidge's row is also inaccurate. The layout of the column is problematic. It looks odd to have an election year listed (a second time) in the row of a person not elected POTUS in that election. The question seems to now be, what to do about the nine times an election year is repeated in the row of a president-by-succession? Drdpw (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We should change it back to its status 'before' late July 2022 or delete the election column 'here' & at the list of veeps page. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of a note next to Ford's name in Nixon's VP slot, perhaps the note should be next be next to Ford's name in his own potus slot, regarding his appointments to both vpotus and potus, instead of being elected, and the uniqueness of that. - w o lf  22:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The VP note belongs where it is, as Ford (like Rockefeller) was appointed to the vice presidency. Also, Ford succeeded to the presidency, just like Tyler, both Johnsons, and the others, he was not appointed.
 * Ah, but Ford isn't "just like" those other men, is he? He is unique among all presidents, and I believe that is why people are seeking to have a simple note added beside his name indicating as such. The question is, why oppose this so strongly? It's just a note. A very common tool on WP. - w o lf  01:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * He succeeded from the vice presidency to the presidency, just like Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman & L. Johnson. As for his being appointed veep, where's the others were elected veep? That's handled appropriately at Veeps list page. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't quite take your point. - w o lf  01:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In this article, it doesn't matter that Ford was an appointed vice president, who succeeded to the presidency. Besides, we already have a note in Nixon's entry, showing that Ford was appointed his vice president, following Agnew's resignation. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
Yes, I'm aware of that. My point was since there is already a note, among many notes, why not just move and expand the Nixon VP one, or add a new one next to Ford as potus, that explains the unique circumstances of his ascendency to both of these offices, neither as the result of an election. He is the only person to have done this, I thought it would make an worthwhile note, it seems I'm not alone in this. So the only question that still remains unanswered is why this is so vehemently opposed? Thanks - w o lf  02:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others. I oppose the proposed additional note, because Ford succeeded to the presidency from the vice presidency, just like eight others before him. The only notable difference concerning this page, is that his predecessor (Nixon) 'resigned' from office, rather then 'died' in office. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And of those "eight others", which ones were appointed to the vice presidency as opposed to being elected? Which of any of the 46 presidents to date have assumed both the office of vice president and president without being elected in either case? That is unique and notable enough to merit an simple note, just like the many other this article has. This is the reason we have notes. Lastly, you still have clarified just why you're so vehemently against this? There is a obvious benefit here... what is the harm? - w o lf  04:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

When was the last time all the living presidents were together?
Was it HW Bush's funeral or Biden's inauguration? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nixon's funeral? Not sure. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that Trump has no interest in hanging with the rest of the living former presidents, but then, they don't seem to broken up about it. (related news article) - w o lf  04:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Obama picture
Why have the 2009 version of the Obama photo, it looks poorly and doesn't match his wikipedia page lead photo. All the other president's photo's on this page match their wikipedia ones. His 2nd one is way better. XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't care but in the future maybe discuss before you revert three times? --Golbez (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In agreement with Golbez. You can't force the changes you want, into an article. A consensus is required for that. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * DON'T delete others comments. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * After XDP's repeated, disruptive edits, I posted (along with a "welcome" template) a standard "unconstructive editing" notice to their talk page. I also included the following personal note;
 * "You need to stop changing the Obama image. Whether or not you think you're avoiding crossing the bright line of edit warring, you're actions are still disruptive and if you continue, you will likely be reported and possibly sanctioned. The last time you tried changing the image, you were asked to seek consensus. This past July, you attempted to start a discussion to do just that but you failed to garner any support. I suggest you leave this be and perhaps focus on improving other articles."
 * As they are a new editor, with less than 60 edits, I thought it important that they be made aware of relevant polcies, such as edit warring, as well as the other avenues available to them, detailed in the "welcome" template. This was their response. Then they blanked the page. As such, with this level of civility and maturity, I'm not sure how much cooperation we can expect. - w o lf  00:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Recommend escorting him to WP:ANI. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ya'll know I'm right XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We all know you'll end up blocked, if you continue to edit-war over it. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently he is just daring to be reported, according to his latest message. (Apparently they're quite eager to win people over with their... charm.) - w o lf  03:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * At least he's proven beyond doubt, he's WP:NOTHERE to improve this project. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No because I brought up all fax no printer XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you just let this go already. The image is not getting changed, and you are acconplishing nothing with all the antics and nonsense between here and your talk page. Just move on. There's plenty of things that brand new editors can do, that are more beneficial to the project. - w o lf  03:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the logic doesn't make any sense, maybe we should switch the Barack Obama page lead photo then. XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You've been reported to WP:AN, btw. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (Here is the AN thread, fyi. - w o lf 04:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC))
 * Ok, IRDC. XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No rule says they have to be the same image. Better to have different images anyway. So instead disrupting another article, why don't you. just. move. on...? - w o lf  03:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just nuke this thread then? XDPOGCHAMPEPEGA (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a need to do anything. (Not sure what your definition of "nuke" is either.) It can be left open, should anyone want to add a comment. Then at some point, it will be archived, like all the other threads here. As is stands, there is no consensus to support the change you're seeking, as confirmed again here, so you will have to stop trying to change the image. That's how it works. - w o lf  04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Multiple data points in a single table cell
I've made a post here: Village pump (policy) and as y'all are the main people who disagree with me on it, I wanted to give you a ping. I thought about going straight to RFC but if I really am the only one fighting this crusade then I'll stop before going that far. =p But it would be poor form for me to not share the link. --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Middle initials & third names
Today someone added the middle initials to Gerald R. Ford and Richard M. Nixon, and it was promotly reverted. I don't necessarily disagree with the revert, I myself, as well as few other editors here, do tegularly revert undiscussed changes for the sake of stability. But this edit does raise the question: should these presidents have their middle initials included? There are currently 14 other presidents on this list that have their middle initials included, and another four that have a full third/middle name (including one Tussenvoegsel).

Using Ford as an example, it seems like the middle initial may be a reasonable addition, given how it's included in other prominent examples;
 * Gerald R. Ford International Airport
 * Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
 * USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
 * Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation
 * Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum
 * Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
 * Gerald R. Ford Birthsite and Gardens
 * Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy (U-M)
 * Gerald R. Ford Freeway (Omaha)
 * Gerald R. Ford Freeway (Grand Rapids)
 * Gerald R. Ford - The Americal Presidency Project
 * Gerald R. Ford collection at National Geographic

I'm sure there are more examples for Ford, and just as many, if not more, for Nixon. So again, maybe this is worth discussing. Thoughts? - w o lf  07:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would recommend RMs for Nixon & Ford, proposing inclusion of their middle initials. If their bio pages are re-named? that change would be reflected in pages like these. GoodDay (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's good enough for their main article, it's good enough here. Neither article includes the initial, neither should we. Golbez (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Total of presidents via political party
Seeing as nuked it. Do we really need to mention how many presidents were Democrats, Republicans, Whigs etc? If so, does Cleveland get counted once or twice. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we count elections or people? Should FDR count as 4 democrats? 3.1 democrats? 1 democrat? Should Ford count as a full Republican? Does this table give anyone any remotely useful information? No. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm neither in favour of keeping it or deleting it. PS - &, please join the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The table has colors for the parties by the presidents, so we don't need that as separate information. Totally redundant. Catfurball (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Having now taken a closer look at what is going on, I agree that we don't need that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, we don't have such a set up at the List of vice presidents of the United States page. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Obvious Support: It works well on Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I think it's a useful reference point. I don't really understand why we have a massive political party index, but don't use it. It's like having the most expensive server in the world for your company, but never making API calls because "we don't do that here". seems to be opposed to index calls for this article because it's not the tradition for this article or the Vice President of the United States' article, which ok.. I don't really have a counter argument to that point. I just find it to be an extremely silly hill to die on. If it's not something we do in the US Politics pages, then I'll just drop it. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I never cited tradition. I cited uselessness, subjectivity, and uselessness. In fact, the only argument you're providing is "other articles have it." How about you tell us how you think this is useful to the reader, rather than simply saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? --Golbez (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:EVERYTHING is the policy that's operative here. If someone comes to this page wondering "How many Presidents were from each party?" you literally want them to just count it out when a reader doesn't have to. We have an index for this. Some things exist for a reason, and your argument screams of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Kind of? It's very marginal information. Why do we need to spend time and energy on a very marginal edge case? Same logic as if someone wanted to know how many presidents were elected in the 20th century. They can count. You responded with some argument of usefulness but haven't addressed the many logical and subjective issues with it. For example, what about partial terms? Re-elections? Changes in party? This is something that is either too subjective to print (and thus we can let the reader decide for themselves), or will always be uselessly vague. As you have not responded to any of the rest of argument and seem to continue misrepresenting me by saying I just don't like it and I want to adhere to "tradition", this conversation appears to be over. (Also, just for fun: If Grover Cleveland counts as 2, then would FDR count as 4?) --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's only one editor arguing for its inclusion, therefore the consensus is to leave it out. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is marginally useful information. I was okay with its inclusion and its removal was fine by me. As reintroducing it would not really enhance the article, I'll chip-in my 2¢-worth to suggest leaving it out. Drdpw (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The overall consensus seems to be that the data is marginally useful, but it's not worth including in the current version of the article. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's deleted & shouldn't be re-added. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding president Ford to the unique facts about presidents in the first section.
Suggested Addition: “Gerald Ford (selected as the vice presidency after resignation of Spiro Agnew, and the president after the resignation of Richard Nixon) is the only president never to have been elected to the office of president or vice president.” 2603:6010:8C01:258B:28B7:D883:EDB6:8A8 (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Ford's entry doesn't say why he's president
It has a blank for election and no other text explaining why suddenly he's president. There's no footnote in his entry that explains it. To someone that doesn't know how he became president, I can imagine this entry is very confusing? --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This also happens with other VPs that take over for presidents. Ford was just the first I noticed. But for example, there's no explanation at all for John Tyler's, Millard Fillmore's, or Andrew Johnson's terms either. People shouldn't have to look at other entries to learn about an entry. --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be a note. Not sure why some are so adamant that there shouldn't. Anyway, this was just discussed a couple of months ago. - w o lf  15:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What's to explain? We already mention he was previously vice president, in Nixon's entry & how he became vice president. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and noted the vp succession circumstances next to the start date of each of the 9 individuals' presidency. Drdpw (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the 'oath of office' dates were removed from this page? I've done the same at the List of vice presidents of the United States page, which required deletion from only one (William R. King) entry. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'oath of office' dates were not removed from the table. The notes about were supplanted by . Drdpw (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The dates were still removed. Anyways, it's not overly important as presidential succession (concerning the vice president) is automatic. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's say I'm looking at the list. I see Ford is president. But not elected? Huh. Look at the date. Well that looks like a date different from the others, why? Oh, so I now need to look at the previous entry to find out why the date was different. And then I have to look again at the previous entry to see that Ford was Vice President beforehand.
 * This might be just me, but I feel like every entry in a list like this should be self-contained. If you have to look at another entry for any context, you've done it wrong. That's part of why we include both the start and end dates, despite the fact that, technically, you only ever need one, since you could look at the previous or next ones to find the full range. But we don't do that. --Golbez (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter 'how' he became vice president? Isn't it enough that he was vice president at the moment President Nixon resigned & thus became president? GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * C'mon guys... play nice. No need for edit-warring. (Last thing one would expect from the regulars here.) - w o lf  18:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention how he became VP, I meant that he was VP and that's why he became president. As for "isn't it enough" - again, you're requiring they look at the previous entry. Don't ask the reader to do that. Each entry should be self contained. If I have to look at a different entry to see that the person who wasn't elected was VP beforehand, that's poor form
 * The Ford entry should at the very least say why he is in office, since there is no election. If it doesn't, you're requiring the reader to look at other entries in the list, at which point, why even have a list, just write prose. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The readers are required to look at the other entries in the list, for Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson & Arthur (like Ford), who weren't later elected president. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

and they shouldn't have to I cannot understand the mindset of you saying "We shouldn't fix Ford because these other entries are also broken" please explain this --Golbez (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just don't agree with singling out Ford. This page is about the presidents, not the vice presidents. Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, L. Johnson & Ford all succeeded to the presidency, because they were vice president, at the moment their predecessor died (in office) or resigned. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * no. one. is. singling. out. ford. even look at my opening statement - "Ford was just the first I noticed." I am genuinely starting to question either your good faith or your reading comprehension. This is not the first time you've dug in when making a mistake, but it will definitely be the last time I waste time trying to decipher you. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't need 'my' consent for what you're proposing. There are other editors who frequent this page. Open a RFC for your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is now a note next to every start date that is not March 4 / January 20 stating why each person entered office (intra-term) at a date different from the others. does this address your concern? Drdpw (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ideal (imo the best place for such a note is the election column) but better than what we had. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "no. one. is. singling. out. ford." - I am. I still think there should be a note in his entry, or some mention in the prose preceding the list, that he is the only president not elected to either the office of vpotus or potus. It's a unique occurence, unlikely to happen again, and is worth mentioning, esp here where all the presidents are collected on one page. A single sentence isn't too much to ask. Just sayin'. - w o lf  22:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Mentioning that Nixon appointed Ford as vice president is trivia for this list. It's noted in Gerald Ford's page, Nixon's page, the 25th Amendment's page, and the list of vice president's page. It doesn't need to be everywhere. There's a footnote describing how he became president, and as this is the "list of presidents of the United States," that should suffice.Dr. Blazer (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "I still think there should be a note in his entry, or some mention in the prose preceding the list,…" – Though the lead is rather meaty already, Ford being never elected VPOTUS or POTUS is certainly more noteworthy and pertinent to the contents of the table than the sentences currently there about the and the . Drdpw (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Over at the List of vice presidents of the United States page, are Ford & Rockefeller mentioned in the prose as the only appointed vice presidents? If so, then we could mentioned Ford's uniqueness in this page's prose, as the only person to have served as president and vice president, without being elected to either office. Indeed, Ford is the first to succeed to the presidency, via section 1 of the 25th amendment. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Lifespans
If we're going to have these, then at least shouldn't we have the full dates? --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Imho... no. - w o lf  23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, so if we just have the years, the dates are there as a general benchmark of when they lived, but nothing more specific. If you want to know the detail, you have to click. If you want to know their age at death, you have to click. (math won't be sufficient if you want a specific number)
 * So ... I am not hostile to the idea of just using years, it certainly has less clutter than full dates, but my question to you is, what purpose do they serve on their own? If it's just for a general benchmark, their actual time in office also indicates that. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh. Thinking about how many pages and reference works include the years... yeah, why not. I'm not going to be the one to change that notion, and it's not gonna be here. Thread withdrawn. --Golbez (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The birth & death years, is enough. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

President Fillmore's photograph
I kinda want to change Millard Fillmore's photograph to the one on his Wikipedia page as it is also sourced to which photographer took it, while the current photo on this page has an unknown photographer. TomMasterReal (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the current photo looks better, and has been on this list for a couple years now. I also don't see how which photographer, or even knowing the name, makes any differece. (jmho) - w o lf  04:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The photo does not look like Millard Fillmore to me and the link the file links to is dead. The current photo of him on his Wikipedia page lists a photographer which shows that it was not photo-shopped or edited to look like another image. User:TomMasterReal (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Try the link now. - w o lf  05:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The link works now, eh I guess we can keep the old photo. TomMasterReal (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2022
 * The current image of Alec Baldwin.... I mean Millard Fillmore, suffices. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh... yeah, a little bit. I suppose. Now that you mention it. - w o lf 07:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How does knowing the name of a photographer show that the photo itself "was not photo-shopped"? -- Sleyece (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Parties by Number of Terms
U.S. Presidents have several times changed parties mid-term. A key at the top of the list displaying how many terms each party has won could help some readers who are not familiar with American politics understand. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How so? How does listing those help readers with anything? And so many questions, but I won't repeat them because they're the exact same questions that went unanswered the last time you tried this. --Golbez (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we had a discussion on this & the list of US veeps page many months ago, concerning this topic. The consensus (I believe) was for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that says one article's talk has to be beholden to the format any other. I think that the worry any change might remove the list from a Featured list status to be the more significant risk. I thought the bold edit was warranted, even if it's just an option for posterity to be considered in the future. -- Sleyece (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This article was already FL status before you first added the key a couple months ago, so there is no need for worry that its absence might put that status in jeopardy. As for the key itself, it is of marginal usefulness, and does not help readers understand that presidents have on occasion changed party affiliation while in office. Also, please note that the table already includes helpful information on this subject where needed. Drdpw (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have a long history of reverting my edits because I'm the user that made them. If the featured status is not in jeopardy, then I'm reverting back, per talk. The claim that it's of "marginal usefulness" is your POV, and not a fact though you present your opinion as unchallengeable fact. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop reinserting the party key as multiple editors have spoken up against its inclusion. It was previously removed by consensus (you were the only editor arguing for its inclusion) and should not be added again without concensus. Drdpw (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * there's obviously no consensus here (nor will there be at the list of veeps) for what you want added. So I recommend you stop trying to re-add it. Otherwise, your actions may well be viewed as edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your baseless threat is noted. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat. It's advice on how to avoid being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't need you to tell me to stop doing something I haven't done. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nixon's rowspans
Now that we have that issue resolved, Nixon. Now, in other lists when we consider rowspans to be acceptable usage, Nixon would have 4 rows - one for the 1968 election with Agnew, one for the 1972 election with Agnew, one for the 1972 election vacant, and one for the 1972 election with Ford. Like so:

This way, you see that Nixon's 1968 election was with Agnew, as was his 1972, which had a vacancy and a new VP. I can't speak for others but it seems straightforward to me.

Here is how it is in the present table:

So, my question to you, looking at this second example... who was elected in 1972? Visually, on my screen, it looks like Agnew left midway through the 1968 term, the term remained vacant through part of the 1972 term, and then Ford was appointed. Going by text, we can be clear what's happening, but wasn't the point of dropping the rowspans to be more visually appealing to the small subset of people who sort? I'm saying that decision is at the expense of everyone who uses the article, since visually it's leaving incorrect clues for the reader. I'm not saying we have to go to rowspans - I'm saying, there has to be a better way of handling this strange system than the way it is now. --Golbez (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do whatever clarifies the situation, if that means installing the proposed change. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a solution to clarify it that doesn't use rowspans. That's why I'm asking this community that decided rowspans were bad. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My choice is to delete the veeps from this page & delete the presidents from the list of veeps page. PS - The 1973–77 term, is the only one with multiple vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want an example that doesn't involve multiple vice presidents in a term, you have Andrew Jackson's. Two elections, three rows in VP, so visually ambiguous. As for your choice, I mean if you want to. There's a reason I don't edit this article any more, so do whatever you want with it. I'm talking to the community. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How does it look as if Agnew left midway through 1968 when it literally says "Vacant 10 October 10, 1973?" Yes, it requires reading as you said, but Wikipedia was never intended to be a picture book. If the vacancy began 1973, then clearly Agnew was elected in 1972. It's a list, not a biography of each individual. The purpose of the wikilink is to spark curiosity and give readers one-click access to new content; if someone wants to know more about Gerald Ford and how he wound up vice president, they can click the link. Dr. Blazer (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "How does it look" well, it looks. I specified look, not text. Would you like a screenshot? And yes, the text is by far the most important, but the thing is, rowspans were explicitly abandoned for the sole reason that they messed up visually when people tried to sort. If that visual mishap hitting the very small number of people who want to sort the table is a problem, then surely this visual miscommunication that hits literally 100% of the people reason it is a problem as well. You can't just say "we aren't a picture book" while ignoring the fact that visuals are precisely why we are using this broken system. Why even use tabular data to begin with, we could just list things. Oh, right, because it looks better, and is more accessible. Well, I want this to look better and be more accessible. --Golbez (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

began the RFCs earlier this year, that changed the layout of this & the List of veeps page. Perhaps, he should be consulted. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would suggest footnotes as needed to clarify. Perhaps "Elected in 1968 and 1972; resigned on October 10, 1973" for Agnew and/or "Nominated by Nixon to fill vacancy; took office on December 6, 1973" (or something similar) for Ford? Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 03:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask this point blank: If the reason for getting rid of rowspans was because, when they were used and someone sorted, it created an ugly table - in other words, saying that the visual display for a very small segment of our readership was poor - then how is it acceptable that this version is at somewhat poor for literally 100% of our readership? (notwithstanding the fact that it makes the VP column unsortable) No one has to sort to get this. If the mangling of the table by rowspans was unacceptable then I don't see how this can be acceptable. If we're going to have any kind of visual layout, then this is a question that has to be dealt with. --Golbez (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * or not dealt with, I guess. --Golbez (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

So coming back to this, again: If we abandoned rowspans because they were ugly for a small segment of the readership, how is this justified where it's ugly and misleading for 100% of the readership? We need to fix this, imo, and the only solution I have is going back to the rowspans, but obviously someone else might have a better idea. But having multiple datapoints in a cell separated by a non-aligned visual element is not really the best idea we can have. --Golbez (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to take up my advice. We'd be avoiding these potential mess ups, if we removed the veeps from this page & removed the presidents from the list of veeps page. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because no one else seems to agree with you. If I have to accept the idea of including the presidents' lifespans, as dumb as I think that is, then you should try accepting the idea of including the VPs. There's also the fact that, even if you still did that, we still have multiple datapoints separated by a visual indicator (in the election column), which is suboptimal at best. --Golbez (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this current mess, the result of Tol's RFCs? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On that note, has anyone considered posting a help request, (at HD, VP, etc) for assistance with the table layout? Perhaps someone out there can help set up the cells better? I've seen some pretty cool things done on other complex tables. Just a thought... - w o lf  05:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor layout question
Not sure if this has been brought up before, but for the most part, in cells for two-term VPs POTUSs, the cell for the first term has the year at the very bottom and the second term has the year at the very top of the cell. Meanwhile, one-term VPs POTUSs basicallly have the year in the middle of the cell. I took a glance at some of the markup, but didn't notice if this was by design, but my question is; is it? Or is it a default that was left in place, meaning it again would be by design, so the question stands. Also, if it is by design; why? Thanks - w o lf  18:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "very bottom" and "very top"? I feel like this is an error in your browser. Can you share a screenshot of what you're talking about? (Also, there are no "cell for first term" and "cell for second term". There's one cell, inexplicably, that contains multiple terms.) --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know why I mentioned the VPs. I referring to the the "Election" column. If there are two cells (two terms) for a President, the year is sits at the bottom of the first cell/term, the top of the second cell/term. If there is only a single term, them the years sits in the middle of the cell. Sorry for any confusion (shouldn't post when in need of sleep), but otherwise, the questions stand. - w o lf  00:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, there's only one cell. We use a visual element to split it up, but code-wise, it's one cell. That's why they sit close to the middle - because it's text. "Year one, break, line, break, year two." There's no way around this unless we want to just hardcode a bunch of line breaks, or, y'know, we stop using this bad system. --Golbez (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The one cell with text drawn to middle makes sense, and no, it's not worth any hassle to try and change it. I just asked outta curiosity, not because it's a major problem. Anyway, thanks for the replies. - w o lf  19:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

List of living us presidents
A list needs to be added on the page of us presidents that includes currently living presidents. 4xh4xh4xh (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. That information is available in the Name column of the table. Drdpw (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Spare us, please. Surtsicna (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I we already been over this, many times. - w o lf  21:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We've had an RFC on this matter & the result was to "delete" such info, as being trivia. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Tyler's party
He was elected as a Whig. We shouldn't really care what happens outside of that. We should include a footnote, of course, as we do, but it doesn't change anything in the table: Tyler was elected in 1841 as a Whig. It's not like changing parties is any kind of official or binding process, but nominations and elections are. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * For a list of presidents, we should include relevant information about their times in office, and changing affiliation is a part of that. Also, I believe Tyler's expulsion was made official by Whig Party members. Qytz (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, which is why it should be in a footnote. I think the only time his party was relevant for this list was when he was elected, so it should be static for the term, with a footnote. Otherwise we're giving it too much importance - if it's in between terms, its only relevance is for policy, rather than for how they were elected. --Golbez (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. Tyler's expulsion from the Whig Party was very consequential and a very important event at the time, so it would make sense that it would be visually represented, rather than just a simple footnote. NewDealChief (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One could argue, that the expulsion was a prelude to the 'first' attempt to impeach a US president. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , not to nitpick. But, Tyler was elected (veep) 1840, not 1841 - unless, you're only including when the electoral votes were certified by the US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair, I meant 1840, but yeah, he was elected as a Whig. To a different office, sure, but that's still the most relevant party. It's not like the party of the president has any meaning outside of elections. ... But, I can recognize when the world isn't ready for my utopian ideals of how bios and tables/I can recognize when I might be wrong, so I'll pull back and re-examine it. Just because I hate the nature of political parties and think they should be irrelevant doesn't mean it's true or that everyone else should. --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Tyler's party" (forget its official name), was mostly (rather quickly) put together to push the 1844 Democratic National Convention to nominate a presidential candidate who would support Texas' joining the USA. After the Democrats did so, by nominating James K. Polk? Tyler's party (which didn't nominate a running mate for the president) dissolved & thus re-unified the Democratic vote, which helped in defeating the president's political opponent, the Whig presidential nominee - Henry Clay. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2023
DeSantis as the 47th president. This is not true. Mary Alice Boyle: The page shows Ron 24.190.245.211 (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done This was vandalism, which has been reverted. Thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Obama's portrait
Since consensus is required to change any presidential portrait, I would propose switching Obama's portrait in the article from the current one (File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg) to File:President Barack Obama.jpg. The proposed option is newer (it was taken in his second term and not his first), and is the one used in Obama's infobox; election infoboxes, etc. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. 2601:600:9080:A4B0:CD24:868:4FEA:35DF (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. - w o lf  03:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree as well. A portrait closer to how he looked when first elected is preferable. There have beem multiple discussions and RFCs in the past on this topic. Check the archives. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Name of the Article
I'd like to propose that the word 'President' in the name of the article should be capitalized, so it looks like "List of Presidents of the United States". I know, it's a very small matter, but I believe the importance of the title of President should warrant it's capitalization. NewDealChief (talk) 07:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This has already been debated thoroughly and it was found that the lowercase title better conformed to Wikipedia's own manual of style (see MOS:JOBTITLES). Woko Sapien (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing Tyler's portrait
Since consensus is required to change any presidential portrait, I propose we change John Tyler's. The one currently on the page was taken fifteen years after he left the office, far longer than any other. Qytz (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we should adopt the proposed in office portrait. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, *but- I'm agreeing to this change here because I believe it's the better image, this case only. Any other image changes will still be to be proposed separately and on their own merits (imho). - w o lf  04:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed - The photos always give a better understanding of how the person looked like, we should do the same with Van Buren and John Quincy Adams V.B.Speranza (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Portraits
Pardon if this veers out of pure "discuss the article" territory, but ...

Why do y'all care so much about what portrait is used? I think at least 80% of the edit wars on this article are all about which picture to use for a dead famous guy. --Golbez (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Best course, is for any editor to propose an image on the talkpage. Rather then boldly adopt the new image. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine, but why do people care so much? Why are so many of the edits just drive-by changing of a pic? --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you expect to achieve with this thread? It seems somewhat contradictory, either people casually change an image with a fly-by edit, which doesn't suggest they "care so much" (and are unlikely to respond), or you could try pinging specific editors who have made actual, concerted efforts to change an image (or images), with multiple attempts to make the same edit, as well as perhaps some fully engaged talk page debating to support their changes. Pinging said users is more likely to not only get a response, but one with actual answers, as opposed to some mind-reading type replies solicited by this kind of tossing a general question into the air approach. (jmho) - w o lf  00:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for mindreading but I wondered if any of yu had in the last many years done the same and enquired but I see y'all are just as incurious as I was. --Golbez (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of portraits - why are they so big? Is there a particular reason for 160px? --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What size are they on the veep list page? Would be best if they're consistent. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question, because it then goes to "why are they so big over there," and I strongly suspect the response to be "because they're that big over here." Consistency needs a reason. --Golbez (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm content with whatever size is agreed upon, if it's applied to both pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Veep page pictures are 150px. I see no good reason for those on this page to be larger. Drdpw (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of formatting that's not applied to both pages. --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * By all means, reduce the prez photos to 150px. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not 75? --Golbez (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A microscope would be required to see portraits/photos at 75px size. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really. On my phone, at the current size, three rows and two columns are visible. At 75px that changes to 6 rows and 3 columns. And the best part, if I want to see a picture better, I can tap it! And that works on PC as well! Instead of forcing a particular large size, how about let people see the larger size if they so wish? This is a list, not a photo gallery. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Might be best to open an RFC on the size of portraits/photos for all the list pages of US officer holders, both federal & state/territory level. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm not opening that can of worms, lest the poor decisions from this article infect my work. I was merely curious why that's the size here, a question which remains unanswered, so it's starting to appear that was just done one day by someone. Which is fine. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not just use the "thumb" parameter and leave fixed sizes out of it altogether? - w o lf  22:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Washington’s Presidency Start Date
Washington’s Presidency started on March 4th yes he was sworn in on April 30th but alot of presidents have been sworn in on march 3rd/5th or january 19th/21st because of the sunday but they all still say that their Presidency started on March 4th or January 20th yet for Washington it’s different? Why is this? I would like to propose we change it to March 4th as that’s when the office of president started and the office/title of president has never been vacant unlike the office of vice president Lil Zadeh (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing historical sources use April 30, 1789 (swearing in date, instead of term starting date) for the first president, as it was during the formation of the federal government, under the US Constitution. Same reason why April 21, 1789 is used for the first vice president. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh okay thank you Lil Zadeh (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Image changes, without consensus
We've got to do something about editors showing up (IP, mobile, etc) & changing images here & at List of vice presidents of the United States without a consensus & borderline edit-warring to keep those changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote
@Drdpw: How is this a "DAB of little usefulness"? "Presidents of the United States" could refer to several other things, all documented at President of the United States (disambiguation), most notably to President of the United States itself, but also to 5 other "United States"es and The Presidents of the United States of America (band). ( redirects here too, but I left it out of the "redirects here" clause to save space.) WP:HATNOTERULES is clear,. This is widely followed in cases where the singular and plural form of a term diverge. To take three canonical examples from WP:PLURAL:
 * redirects to Microsoft Windows, which hatnotes to Window; Window hatnotes to Windows (disambiguation).
 * redirects to Seattle Seahawks, which hatnotes to Sea Hawk, to which redirects.
 * redirects to Laughter, which hatnotes to Snickers; Snickers hatnotes to Snickers (disambiguation), which has an entry for Laughter.

That said, I don't have a strong preference as to whether the hatnote target should be President of the United States (disambiguation) or President of the United States. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 21:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as Presidents of the United States of America and The Presidents of the USA redirect here (they shouldn't, and they didn't until recently), there must be a hatnote because of the band, if nothing else. Presidents of the United States is slightly less of an issue because president of the United States is linked in the first sentence. Station1 (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Those articles should not redirect to this list article. Drdpw (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then take them back to RfD. It's been 2 months since, and since that closed as no consensus it's been long enough to renominate. Until then, though, a hatnote is required by WP:HATNOTERULES. Please self-revert and then, if you wish, start a new RfD. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 01:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)